Construction: The Symphony in C is a four-movement orchestral work numbered with Roman numerals and with an attacca transition from movement II to movement III, as well as continuous rehearsal figures across all four movements which only partly relate to the music, every five, four or six bars. An influence from Beethoven has been construed from the fact that one of these rhythmic models corresponds to the outline of Beethoven’s motif in the 5th Symphony (quaver rest-quaver-quaver-quaver / quaver, or augmented, crotchet rest-crotchet-crotchet-crotchet / minim), and from other components a similar influence from Haydn. Strawinsky himself supported this idea with his verbal utterances. – In the first movement, an architectonic symmetry can be seen in the style of Mozart’s finales, in that 9 (or 7) sections can be identified which correspond in terms of their numbers of bars, regardless of how one tries to define the separate sections with historical formal terms such as 1st or 2nd subject, development, recapitulation and so on: section I to section IX (each 25 bars). section II to section VIII (each 34 bars), section III to section VII (each 34 bars), section IV to section VI (respectively 58 to 57 or 56 bars) and section V, the middle section, with 67 or 68 bars. A similar architectonic structure can be seen for all Strawinsky’s instrumental works, observable to a greater or lesser extent, and this can be portrayed negatively if one views it from the point of view of the development of the ideas, but it can just as well be seen positively if one considers it from the point of view of the richness of the ideas from which the work is constructed. – The second movement, which especially enthused Strecker, shrinks the orchestra to a chamber-music concertino score without trombones, tuba and timpani with only one horn and one trumpet. Each instrument plays soloistically with great use of ornaments. Structurally, it is an A-B-A1 aria, in terms of genre it is a concertino movement speeding up from section to section. The motivic fragments form the transition into the third movement, which continues for this reason without a pause. – The third movement is in a complicated three-part scheme with a miniature middle movement of a suite,Meno mosso at figure 113ff. and a final fugue at figure 122ff., which appears as a variation of the first section and is constructed using several types of contrapuntal processes such as inversions and retrogrades. The middle section of a suite is based on the two old, rhythmically related dances, the Minuet and Passepied. – The fourth movement in the style of the Concerto Grosso (some have even attempted to detect rudimentary sonata movement forms in it) combines two short, slow sections with two longer, fast sections and a coda with an A-B-A1-B1-C form. Strawinsky does not use the three-note motif alone as the basis for the work, as in the other movements, but employs self-contained intervallic combinations from the first movement. The final, held, pure wind chords from figure 181 augment the motif out of which the Symphony is developed, throughout the entire palette of the score. The piece closes with a single, muted, broad string chord.

Allegretto Quaver = 126 ([attacca from figure 985] figure 599 up to the end of figure 112)

Meno mosso Quaver l= 78 (figure 113 up to the end of figure 121)

Tempo I, AllegrettoQuaverl = 126 (figure 122 up to the end of figure 128)

Più mosso Crotchet = 92 (figure 129 up to the end of figure 134)

Tempo IQuaver = 126 (figure 135)

IV

Largo Crotchet = 50 (figure 4136 up to the end of figure 137)

Tempo giusto, alla breve Minim = 84 (figure 138 up to the end of figure 161)

Largo Minim = 50 Doppie del Tempo I (figure 162)

a tempo Minim = 84 (figure 163 up to the end of figure 164)

Alla breve (in 2) = (figure 165 up to the end of figure 174)

Poco meno mosso Minim = 63 crotchet = 126 in 4 (figure 175 up to the end of figure 1864)

Style: Behind the name of the piece, ‘Symphony’, is concealed Strawinsky’s definition of an orchestral piece without parameters. To seek elements of classical exposition or development in a dialectically orientated composition of a piece in sonata form with more than one affect, cannot succeed. To look for derivations from orthodox structures can be lead to certain discoveries, because certain things fit into the scheme, but it is only useful as long as the idea of the Suite as the compositional principle for the whole piece is not overlooked. Strawinsky’s typical motivic variations come out of Classical developmental elements. Strawinsky does not think in terms of dialectical processes. He manipulates intervallic combinations like a series and organises both their allocation as well as their sequence into equilibria with or without a centre. In this respect, the entire piece is a single large development of motific fragments which are combined together, into which thematic connections can be read, depending on one’s analytical proclivities, although one can also argue against these analyses with the same efficacy, as tables describing architectonic balance only have weight as long as they correspond to the balance of duration. The Symphonie en Ut is based as a piece on two three-note combinations of a minor second + a fourth (b1-c2-g1) and a major second + a fourth (d2-e2-b1); these are not developed dynamically, but rather appear in a static sequence. there is also a rhythmic framework which underpins this but which contradicts the metrical construction. According to the prevailing opinion of the literature, the work is broken up into a European section (movements one and two) and an American section (movements three and four). There is also the metrical restlessness of the third movement to take into account. Strawinsky himself explained that certain episodes without programmatic elements in American cities should be construed in this way. Compositionally, Strawinsky was seeking to imitate the motivic construction of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, by using a motif without repeated notes and retaining the characteristic rhythm in the accompaniment process. The entire Symphony revolves around this motif, which unlike with Beethoven, is used without tension; this results in the perpetually rearranging variation of the same motific fragment.

Dedication*: >This symphony, composed to the Glory of God, is dedicated to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of its existence<.

* The Schott editions of the pocket score have no dedication.

Date of origin: I. Movement: Paris autumn 1938 up to springtime 1939; II. Movement: Sancellemoz about the end of March 1939 up to August 1939; III. Movement: Cambridge, Massachusets, autumn 1939 up to winter 1939/40; IV. Movement: Beverly Hills, California, Hollywood, summer up to 19th August 1940; work on the piece had to be interrupted on several occasions due to other commitments.

Duration: 26′ 56″.

First performance:7th November 1940, Chicago, Chicago Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Igor Strawinsky.

History of origin: The history of the composition of the Symphony, which Robert Craft has traced in a separate article, was much dictated by Fate, and was very changeable and was moreover overshadowed by the worst family tragedies: the death of his sister-in-law, Ludmilla Belyankin, early in 1937 from tuberculosis, the death of his eldest daughter, Ludmilla in November 1938 from tuberculosis, the death of his wife Yekaterina Nossenko on 2nd March 1939 from tuberculosis and the death of his mother, Anna Strawinsky on 7th June 1939. The Strawinsky family had ceased to exist. Strawinsky himself was so distressed that he all but fled from Paris and, having recently become ill with tuberculosis, withdrew to the lung sanatorium Sancellemoz at Sallanches in High Savoyen for five months, where his wife had lived for many years. He must have found himself in a condition of the most extreme exhaustion, as can be seen from a letter to his daughter-in-law dated 18th March 1939 from Sancellemoz. He was also in dire financial straits in addition to this. On 15th March 1939, Nadia Boulanger wrote from Cambridge, Massachussets to Strawinsky in Sancellemoz, Mrs. John Alden Carpenter and Mrs. Robert Wood Bliss had guaranteed the première of the Symphony in Chicago. Strawinsky was at this time working on the first movement, which he completed on 17th April in his characteristic particle format. On 16th May, the orchestration of the movement had been completed to the extent that he was able to give it to his representative from Schott publishers, Wilhelm Strecker. He had received the manuscript back with exceptional photographic reproductions by 9th July, and on 10th July the contract between him and Strecker had been signed. On 19th July, Strawinsky completed the second movement in short score. At this point in time, the printing of the score was planned for August and the extraction of the parts from the first movement was almost complete. On 29th July, Strawinsky was working on the orchestration and was under time pressure because he was to go to Venice for the biennial arts festival on 31st August, thence on to Paris and he was finally to take a ship to America on the Île de France on 27th September. Strecker himself had come to Sancellemoz on 22nd August 1939 to collect the now completed second movement of the Symphony, about which he was very excited. By 9th September, the photographic reproductions were completed. In the meanwhile, the premises on which the composition had been based had changed. The expected performance in America seems to have fallen through and Strawinsky was, via Strecker, looking for other performance possibilities, such as with the British Broadcasting Corporation in London. It still seemed that Strawinsky would return to Europe. Strecker gave him the address of Associated Music Publishers in New York as a point of contact for the other movements of the Symphony. In a letter of 29th March 1940, the issue of the première resolved itself, once again thanks to Mrs. Bliss and Mrs. Carpenter. The American commission to write a symphony for the fifty-year Jubilee of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, came from Mrs. Robert Wood [Mildred] Bliss and Mrs. John Alden Carpenter, who made available a total of 3,500 Dollars. On 14th March 1940, Strawinsky met Mildred Bliss at an evening reception held in his honour by Elizabeth Sprague Coolidge in the Colony Club in New York, after Strawinsky had that morning given a matinée for the benefit of French war aid in the town hall (French War Relief). Mildred Bliss informed Strawinsky at this opportunity of the division of the intended total sum of 3,500 dollars. According to her, 1,000 Dollars came from Mrs. Carpenter and the rest from Mrs. Bliss, who included in her contribution of 2,500 Dollars the sum of 1,000 Dollars for the purchase of the score, which she wanted/intended to give to the Library of Congress; this did in fact happen. Strawinsky had to give his agreement that he would write a symphony for the Fiftieth Anniversary of Chicago Symphony Orchestra, as it was also later referred to in the dedication printed in the front of all the editions. In this question emerged misunderstandings. Strawinsky from Boston wrote on 14th April to Frederick Stock in Chicago that no-one had mentioned anything to him about the connection between the commission and the dedication. It had generally always been his intention to dedicate the Symphony to the Chicago Orchestra, not before, but after the contract. Up to that point, he wanted to keep the possibility open of dealing with other interested parties and as a result to be free to dedicate the Symphony to another orchestra if necessary. The final American contract, which was still up in the air, was signed on 17th April 1940. In the meanwhile, the photographs of the second movement were produced in such a way that they were unusable for the printing because they were not sharp enough. The original manuscript of the second movement was needed, which was at Schott in Mainz. Due to the events of the War in Europe, they were afraid to put the manuscript in the post. Schott communicated that it would be brought to New York by Mrs. Gertrud Hindemith. In fact, the manuscript was stored for the entire war at Schott in Mainz and Strawinsky first received the original of the second movement in December 1952 in the Gladstone Hall in New York from Paul Hindemith. With Ernest Voigt of Associated Music Publishers’s statement that he received the manuscript of the first and third movement on 8th May 1940, the time frame was at the same time set for the completion of the third movement for between Autumn 1939 and the end of the first part of 1940 at the latest. Strawinsky had travelled on to California a long time previously, to where the photographic copies were sent to him on 7th June from New York. From the letter that Strawinsky sent to Voigt from Beverly Hills, it can be seen that he was in the midst of work on the fourth movement. He hoped, subject to eventual interruptions, to be able to send the movement by the end of July and the entire score by the end of August. He estimated the length of the final movement at 50 pages, with 4 to 5 bars to a page. He then had two months to extract the parts and to make the corrections. At this point in time, France had lost the war against Germany, and Strawinsky was so despondent about the events in France that his work was substantially delayed, and he should have been able to complete it a long time before he actually did. The score was given its final date of 19th August 1940, while Strawinsky himself later claimed that it was completed on 17th August. On 23rd August, he sent the final movement to Voigt with the request that it be photographed and subsequently that the manuscript be sent on to the Washington Library of Congress and that they transfer the pre-arranged sum of one thousand dollars to him, according to a letter of 8th July 1939. This date is taken today to be the date of completion of the Symphony. Since he was not however in possession of the original of the second movement, he must have written it out anew. The photographic printing originals for the first two movements were however with Schott in Mainz, and those for the final two movements were in the possession of Associated Music Publishers in New York. Mainz could not go into production without the American documents, but conversely, New York could do so very well due to the original being available. The costs for the delivery were high and the dangers great. Voigt therefore wrote to Strecker that the score would have to be produced in New York, but this did not happen. In the meanwhile, there was the question of the payment for the première; Strawinsky agreed to Strecker’s conducting this ten days before the beginning of the war in France for a named fee of 250 dollars, and there was also the matter of the fee for the upcoming vinyl recording by Columbia, for which it was necessary to use 7 records due to its length of 28 minutes. On 7th November 1940, Strawinsky conducted the première and a repeat performance on 8th November in a matinée and a further repeat on 12th November.

Remarks: The parts produced by Associated Music Publishers in New York must have been only crawling with mistakes. On 29th July 1941, Strawinsky wrote to Nadia Boulanger to co-ordinate the corrections together. He referred to them as ‘the idiots of Associated Music Publishers’ and complained that it could not be ruled out that Associated Music Publishers had sent the uncorrected material to England for the eventual performances. On 2nd November 1941, Strawinsky wrote a letter to Ernest Voigt in which he mentioned that Nadia Boulanger was now in possession of his score with all the corrections made and was prepared to liaise with Voigt due to an urgently necessary new set of orchestral parts. Orchestral parts generally do not survive for many performances. After that, they must be replaced. This is true even more when they are for a new piece in which the composer clearly discovers errors and goes on to make corrections. At the same time, Strawinsky was making inquiries as to whether this material, which had been sent to Hugo Strecker in London, referred to the old or the corrected material, and he seemed to know the actual circumstances for a long time. He did not want, as he wrote further, to be in the shoes of the conductor who had to conduct this music without being familiar with all the material with which he himself had had his hands full coming to terms. In a further letter to Ernest Voigt of 13th October 1942, Strawinsky expressed his hope that the parts would be brought into order from then on. Strawinsky additionally wrote that he had never come across as faulty a set of parts in his entire musical career (‘the most abundant in mistakes of any I have ever met at any time in my musical career’). The new copies, which Strawinsky presumed Alexei Haieff to be behind, must have been produced very well and very quickly. – Strawinsky was beginning a completely new life in America, where he married his sweetheart of many years, Vera Soudeikina, risking conflict with his children. His change of residential location was only an external sign of this. Strawinsky did not actually emigrate in the strict sense of the word — he simply did not come back again. He was one of the few people who remained in his protective guest country after the changed situation of 1945. But he sought himself a grave on the Island of the Dead in Venice (the place of Wagner’s death), a few metres from Diaghilev.

Significance: The meaning of the piece lies in the consequently varying serial structural character of a miniature motif, which comes out of the concept of an inevitably tension-less static sequence of episodes. For the same reason, the Symphony in C is regarded as one of Strawinsky’s weaker works in the eyes of certain serious critics, who did not assume generally hostile and false Marxist theses.

Versions: The further distribution of the Symphony suffered from the lack of a correct printing, and Strawinsky had to give his own copy out of his hand in terms of time, in order to allow the intended performances to go ahead. From that point, he applied pressure with letters to Hugo Winter (11/2 and 27/3/1944) on several occasions for at least a makeshift printing, which was not carried out. But there was in any case a recording scheduled before 11th February 1944, which Strawinsky used to explain his intentions to other conductors, especially the hasty Koussevitsky. After the end of the Second World War, when connection to Schott could be re-established, preparations began for the printing. In a letter of 11th July 1946, Strawinsky demanded to see the copies of the corrections for the final movement before the publication, and this was carried out; he conveyed as a precaution to the publishers on 29th September with a cable telegram that he had made many changes and had wished their adoption as quickly as possible. Strawinsky was however not able to send the corrections by airmail, and the normal post connection took at least 7–8 weeks. – On 5th October, Hugo Strecker in London held the corrections in his hands, and his father in Mainz did the same on 1st December. The Symphony was published by Schott at the start of 1948, first in the form of a pocket score edition. On 11th April 1948, Robert Craft conducted the Symphony in Town Hall using a photocopy of the manuscript, which was in the Library of Congress, and Strawinsky gave him the original autograph score of the second movement, which spent the war in Mainz, as a present to him on 1st January 1953 in memory of this concert; it actually should have belonged in the Library of Congress, but had been written anew by Strawinsky, because he was not able to deliver the manuscript in time according to the contract. On 1st June 1948, Strawinsky received the first printed copies of the contributory copies from Mainz. They took four months to get from Mainz to Los Angeles. Neither a piano reduction for four hands completed by Strawinsky was published nor a version for two pianos that Strawinsky’s son, Soulima, produced. The parts were available to hire. The British Museum received only a contributory copy of the pocket score which was entered on 17th March 1948, presumably because the conductor’s score was part of the hire material. Commercially, the Symphony was a success.

Print runs:700 copies of the conducting score (Edition number 3840) were published in two printings during Strawinsky’s lifetime with print runs on 22nd November 1949 (200) and 8th February 1968 (500), and from Strawinsky’s death to the end of the century, there were a further 2 print runs of 1,000 copies each (print runs 10/02/1977 and 15/09/1982) according to the plate books. The pocket score (edition number 3536) had 7 print runs during Strawinsky’s lifetime with a complete number of copies of 8,100 copies (print runs: 23rd February 1948: 1,500; 24th May 1955: 800; 19th March 1959: 800; 20th June 1962: 1,000; 5th March 1964: 1,500; 20th March 1967: 1,500; 17th March 1971: 1,000). For the time after Strawinsky’s death up to the end of the century, the Schott plate books catalogue only a single print run (23/10/1973) of 1,000 copies. Since such a relationship between the conducting and study scores appears unusual, it may be more correct to assume that the subsequent printings of the conducting score in 1977 and 1982 were printings of the pocket score. For the 1955 edition, his Christian name on the main title page was removed, the performance length corrected from Strawinsky’s estimate of 40 minutes to 28 minutes, the copyright statement limited to 1948, and a new set of adverts inserted.

Choreographies: The Symphony presented itself as a choreographic original, but Strawinsky was not happy about this. He would later flatly reject Kirstein’s inquiry to have the Symphony in Three Movements choreographed (‘I am against it’) and in doing so, he not only differentiated between symphonic and choreographic intention, but also brought into question objectively favourable choreographies like that of the Basel String Concerto (The Cage), without considering the choreographic or dance-related benefits.

The copy in Strawinsky’s estate is signed and dated energetically with >Igor Strawinsky / May 1948< on the outer title page from above to below the vignette, with a very large-reaching opening letter >I<. The statement of duration was corrected from 40 minutes to 28 minutes.

61–1Straw2

A 2nd copy from Strawinsky’s estate only contains up to page 62 and contains annotated corrections. Strawinsky corrects also the duration here to >29–30< minutes, and removes the (rhythmic) dot on the fifth-last semiquaver note (f2) in the oboe system at figure 1094.

° The1st line of the legal reservation is blacked out in the original, so as to render it illegible.

* Fill character (dotted line).

** A black oval separating vignette spanning more than five lines, ø 2.2 cm wheel of Mainz in the frame containing text in bottom half >PERMARE< # >ETTERRAS< left and right.

61–2Straw1

The copy in Strawinsky’s estate is signed and dated >I Strawinsky / Oct 1949< flush right on the outer title page from above to below >Partitur<, and contains many performance-related indications entered in red and black. The statement of duration is corrected to 28 minutes. The two back pages of the cover are missing. The copyright statement was blocked out in black, presumably by the publishers, so as to render it illegible.

61–2Straw2

The copy in Strawinsky’s estate has no cover and contains no annotated corrections.